You are on page 1of 22


SUPLICO, in his
capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Roxas City and POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, SR.
G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992
Reporter: Christine Zaldivar

•Daniel Fuentecha was a working student assigned as the school janitor at the Filamer Christian Institute (FCI).
•On October 20, 1977, while driving a jeep owned by FCI along with Allan Masa, Funtecha hit Potenciano Kapunan, Sr.
which led to the latter's multiple injuries.
•Kapunan filed a criminal case against Funtecha and an independent civil action based on Article 2180 against Funtecha,
Filamer & Agustin Masa.
•RTC Ruling: The trial court rendered judgment finding Filamer, Funtecha as well as Allan Masa, a non-party at fault.
•Daniel Fuentecha was a working student assigned as the school janitor at the Filamer Christian Institute (FCI).
•On October 20, 1977, while driving a jeep owned by FCI along with Allan Masa, Funtecha hit Potenciano Kapunan, Sr.
which led to the latter's multiple injuries.
•Kapunan filed a criminal case against Funtecha and an independent civil action based on Article 2180 against Funtecha,
Filamer & Agustin Masa.
•RTC Ruling: The trial court rendered judgment finding Filamer, Funtecha as well as Allan Masa, a non-party at fault.
•IAC Ruling: Affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.
•SC Ruling: The Court ruled that the petitioner is not liable for the injuries caused by Funtecha on the grounds that the
latter was not an authorized driver for whose acts the petitioner shall be directly and primarily answerable, and that
Funtecha was merely a working scholar who, under Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code is not considered an employee of the petitioner.
•The heirs of Kapunan sought reconsideration of the decision rendered that there exists an employer- employee
relationship between FCI and Funtecha.

Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between Filamer Christian Institute and Funtecha as to
render the former liable for the injury caused by the latter?

•After a re-examination of the laws relevant to the facts found by the trial court and the appellate court, the Court
reconsiders its decision.
•The fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of his janitorial duties does not
relieve Filamer of the burden. The act of driving the jeepney was an act in furtherance of the interest and for the benefit
of the petitioner.
•The clause "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an
employer, includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of
the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage.
•The present case does not deal with a labor dispute on conditions of employment between an alleged employee and
an alleged employer. It invokes a claim brought by one for damages for injury caused by the patently negligent acts of a
person, against both doer-employee and his employer.
•Hence, the reliance on the implementing rule on labor to disregard the primary liability of an employer under Article
2180 of the Civil Code is misplaced. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer as a shield to void
liability under the substantive provisions of the Civil Code.

G.R. No. 73199 October 26, 1988
Reporter: Ivy Casiano

1973 - Private respondent quit her job as an attendant in the clinic of petitioner Dr. Renato Sara
1977 - Petitioners entered into a verbal agreement with private respondent.

1982 - Private respondent filed with NLRC a complaint against petitioners for her unpaid commissions January 17, 1983 -
Labor arbiter rendered a decision
in favor of private respondent
June 25, 1986 - Petitioner filed an appeal to the decision, NLRC dismissed the appeal

Whether an employer employee relationship exist between petitioners and private respondent as to warrant cognizance
by the Labor Arbiter of Case No LRD-ROXII-006-82.

Four-fold Test:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee
There was a selection and engagement of private respondent in 1977.
(2) the payment of wages
Private respondent was not guaranteed any minimum compensation nor was she allowed any drawing account or
advance of any kind against unearned commissions.
(3) the power of dismissal
Either may terminate the business arrangement at will, with or without cause.
(4) the power to control the employee’s conduct
We observe that the means and methods of purchasing and selling rice or palay by private respondent were totally
independent of petitioners’ control.

Wherefore, the instant petition for certiorari is granted, Case No LRD-RCXII- 006-82 of the National Labor Relations
Commission is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Reporter: Bryan Eric T. Cerebo

Petitioner Dy Keh Beng, a proprietor of a basket factory, seeks a review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations dated March 23, 1970.
The Court of Industrial Relations in that case found Dy Keh Beng guilty of the unfair labor practice acts for dismissing
Carlos Solano and Ricardo Tudla for their union activities and ordered him to reinstate them to their
former jobs with backwages.

The issue centered on whether there existed an employee-employer relation between petitioner Dy Keh Beng and the
respondents Solano and Tudla.
Petitioner contends that the private respondents “did not meet the control test in the light of the ... definition of the
terms employer and employee, because there was no evidence to show that petitioner had the right to direct the
manner and method of respondent's work.”
Moreover, it is argued that petitioner’s evidence showed that Solano worked on a “pakiaw basis” and that he stayed in
the establishment only when there was work.

The evidence for the complainant Union showed that Solano and Tudla became employees of Dy Keh Beng from May 2,
1953 and July 15, 1955, respectively, and that except in the event of illness, their work with the establishment was
continuous although their services were compensated on piece basis.
Since the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of baskets (kaing), those working under him would have to observe
his requirements of size and quality of the kaing. The work on the baskets is done at his establishment, it can be inferred
that he could easily control the men he employed.

Section 6, Republic Act 875
provides that in unfair labor practice cases, the factual findings of the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive on the
Supreme Court, if supported by substantial evidence.

he continued working at the request of the overseer of respondent • On March 13. there is substantial proof to the effect that Fabrigar was employed by and rendered service for the petitioner and was an employee within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section three. The ruling of the court considered the formula for backwages worked out by Justice Claudio Teehankee in "cases not terminated sooner. Whether or not the petitioner is exempt from the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. he spat blood and stopped working. Whether or not the contention of the petitioner on evidence presented has merit. RULING 1. he carried desks and chairs from the classrooms to the auditorium. Dela Vega FACTS • Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) • On June 28. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission. his heirs in the person of Leonora Fabrigar (common- law wife) and their children filed a claim for compensation with the WCC. In view hereof. set the curtains and worked harder and faster than usual. However the claim was denied by the Hearing Officer and the case was dismissed because nothing was shown that the disease was contracted in line of duty." WHEREFORE. 1956 to May 15. but by the rule of substantial evidence. like Court of Industrial Relations is bound not by the rule of preponderance of evidence as in ordinary civil cases. Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship. The decision of the Commission does not show that the matter was taken up. as amended. as a janitor. 2. that although he felt shortness of breath and did not feel very well that day. ISSUES 1. according to the a result of the death of Santiago Fabrigar. ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL vs. that from April 29. “the most important test of employer-employee relation is the power to control the employee’s conduct” 3. The court ruled in favor of the heirs of Santiago Fabrigar. Yes. 1956. “Factual question not raised before the Commission may no longer be raised on appeal” 4. . 2. preparatory to graduation day. 3. and the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Whether or not the heirs of Santiago Fabrigar are entitled to compensation under WCC. xxxx (4) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.Republic Act 875. The deceased was not an employee of the school but of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce which should be the one responsible for the compensation. 1956. The heirs appealed the decision with the WCC and on November 12. the appeal interposed by the petitioner is dismissed.messenger of the respondent • On March 11. 1956 .1961 Reporter: Anna Victoria M. However. 1956. 4. he was under treatment for far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis and for heart disease. — a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer: 1) To interfere with. 1959 rendered judgement reversing the decision of its Hearing Officer • Santiago Fabrigar had been employed from 1947 to March 12. LEONORA FABRIGAR and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION 3 SCRA 712 December 27. The petitioner’s pretension is without merit. with costs against the herein petitioner. the award of backwages granted by the Court of Industrial Relations is herein modified to an award of backwages for three years without qualification and deduction at the respective rates of compensation the employees concerned were receiving at the time of dismissal. Section 4 Unfair Labor Practices.

" with which the petitioners claimed to be affiliated. when serving as such. Commercial Employees Association. they work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufferance but. •Subsequently. etc) that the caddy must observe. • In the very nature of things. 1994 Reporter: Val Deatras FACTS •This petition for review was originally filed with the Social Security Commission via petition of 17 persons who styled themselves as “Caddies of Manila Golf and Country Club. avowedly coming to realize that indeed there was no employment relationship between them and the Club. As long as it is. • Even where the cause of the employee’s death is unknown. The Commission dismissed the petition for lack of merit • Appeal was taken to the Intermediate Appellate Court by the union representing Llamar and Jomok. to hazardous conditions.language. with his infirmities.Note: Workmen’s Compensation Law • The burden of proving that that the employee’s injury or illness was not. or avoid. Fermin Llamar and Raymundo Jomok. INC. (2) The Club devises and enforces a group rotation system whereby a caddy is assigned a number. "PTCCEA" being the acronym of a labor organization. etc. dress. lies on the employer. whether few or many. • And to the extent that they are aggravated or accelerated by accidental injuries and in some states to exposure. • The law should be given a broad interpretation to resolve all doubts in favor of workmen and their families. the "Philippine Technical. 64948 September 27. on the other hand. and those infirmities are not to be aggravated or accelerated unnecessarily during his employment. • The Club’s control over the caddies encompassing: (1) The Club promulgates no less than 24 rules and regulations in just about every aspect of the conduct (conduct. not necessarily constituting an accident. which may include suspending or cutting off his access to the club premises. • Every employee is taken as he is. covered by the petitioner’s regulations. v. does not so circumscribe the actions or judgment of the caddies concerned as to leave them little or no freedom of choice whatsoever in the manner of carrying out their services. all but two of the seventeen petitioners of their own accord withdrew their claim for social security coverage.R. and could not be. to stay away for as long as they like. compensation may be awarded. Thus they are not entitled to compulsory coverage in the SSS. ISSUE Whether or not persons rendering caddying services for members of golf club and their guests in said clubs’ courses or premises the employees of such clubs and therefore within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System (SSS)? RULING • They are NOT employees of the Club as the latter has no control over the means and methods by which they perform caddying services. the list detailing the various matters of conduct. which designates his turn to serve a player. No. the right to compensation subsists. caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club they do their work in. ordering that he be reported as such for social security coverage and paid any corresponding benefits. language. leaving Fermin Llamar the lone appellant • IAC reversed the appealed SSC decision and declared Fermin Llamar an employee of the Manila Golf and Country Club. and was eventually adjudicated by the SSC after protracted proceedings only as regards the two holdouts. free to leave anytime they please. (3) The Club “suggests” to guests the rate of fees payable to the caddies. caused or aggravated by the nature of his work. Clerical. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FERMIN LLAMAR G.PTCCEA” for the coverage of and availment of benefits of Social Security Act as amended. . also without having to observe any working hours. MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB. • Raymundo Jomok’s appeal was dismissed at his instance. For all that is made to appear. any violation of any which could subject him to disciplinary action. •The case continued. dress.

00. 1990 – Private respondent filed his complaint with the Department of Labor • August 24. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EUTIQUIO BUSTAMANTE G.R. (AFPMBAI) since 1975. petitioner dismissed private respondent for misrepresentation and for simultaneously selling insurance for another life insurance company in violation of the Sales Agent Agreement between the parties.000. 1989 – Private respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. • February 26. xxx o Commission 1.. INC. • On July 5. memo circulars. xxx o General Provisions 1.00 o Private respondent believed the computations to be true.796. vs.039. however. • On appeal. provided.835. ISSUE Whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and private respondent RULING • The Court ruled that no employment relationship had ever existed between the parties. the Sales Agent being hereby deemed an independent contractor.000. o Entitled to only P75. . 2. that AFPMBAI may from time to time. however he was only paid P35. • Sometime in October 1989. Labor Arbiter Jose G. thus this petition. the Second Division of the respondent Commission affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. and shall be bound by the latter’s policies. 1997 Reporter: Tanya Lynne M. • The labor arbiter relied on the Sales Agent’s Agreement proviso that petitioner could assign private respondent a specific area of responsibility and a production quota. the Sales Agent shall solicit exclusively for AFPMBAI. thus signed a quitclaim in favor of petitioner. modify or cancel to serve its business interests. • November 23. AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION. • Private respondent sought the release of his commissions through a letter he sent Marketing Manager Juan Conception.00 had been paid to him. • The summary showed private respondent had a total commission receivable of P428.00 of which P78. No.. assign him a specific area of responsibility and a production quota on a case to case basis. thus read it as signaling the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties.000-100. de Vera rendered his decision. During the lifetime of this Agreement. There shall be no employer-employee relationship between the parties. private respondent’s check was ready for release and upon collecting his check he discovered from a document attached that his commissions actually amounted to P354. rules and regulations which it may from time to time. Diestro FACTS • Eutiquio Bustamante had been an insurance underwriter of AFP Mutual Benefit Association Inc. • Private respondent was entitled to accrued commissions equivalent to 24 months per the Sales Agent Agreement and as stated in the account summary. 1989. revise. The Sales Agent shall be entitled to the commission due for all premiums actually due and received by AFPMBAI out of life insurance policies solicited and obtained by the Sales Agent at the rates set forth in the applicant’s commission schedules hereto attached. 1990.He is free to solicit in the area for which he/she is licensed and is authorized. • The Sales Agent Agreement between the parties provides that: o Duties and Obligations: 1. 102199 January 28. . however he was advised that it was the Department of Labor and Employment that had jurisdiction over his complaint.

• Petitioner never exercised control over private respondent for the exclusivity restriction imposed clearly springs from a regulation issued by the Insurance Commission. • Private respondent’s contention that he was petitioner’s employee is belied by the fact that he was free to sell insurance at any time as he was not subject to definite hours or conditions of work and in turn was compensated according to the result of his efforts.R. her daughter. “The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employee can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. L-12598 January 28. • Lower court rejected SP’s contention. Without which the dismissal becomes void. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process. On August 29. PP = corporations e n g a g e d i n t h e m a k i n g . must be complied with. 1997 Reporter: Sulpicio Diaz FACTS Sometime in 1953 Honorio Dagui was hired by Doa Aurora Suntay Tanjangco to take charge of the maintenance and repair of the Tanjangco apartments and residential buildings. ISSUES 1. Upon the death of Doa Aurora Tanjangco in 1982. vs. substantive and procedural. Whether or not private respondent was an employee of the petitioner? 2. LVN. 1961 Reporter: Quennie Falsario FACTS • Review by Certiorari – order of the CIR certifying PMG (FFW) as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency of SP. • Furthermore. No. if he so desires. and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.” SAMPAGUITA PICTURES. who was then already sixty-two (62) years old. QUAZON vs. processing and distribution of m o t i o n p i c t u r e s. On June 8. INC. in favor of the Guild • MR is denied too . electrical and masonry work. AURORA LAND PROPERTIES CORPORATION AND TERESITA T.R. 1991. LVN. (c) the power of dismissal. petitioner Teresita Tanjangco Quazon. Whether or not Honorio Dagui was illegally dismissed? RULING 1. plumbing. This simply means that the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative. before a valid dismissal exists. (b) the payment of wages. and not from an intention by petitioner to establish control over the method and manner by which private respondent shall accomplish his work. No. took over the administration of all the Tanjangco properties. PHILIPPINE MUSICIANS Guild (FFW) & COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS G. 2." on the alleged ground that his work was unsatisfactory. Jurisprudence abound as to the rule that the twin requirements of due process. Jurisprudence is firmly settled that whenever the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute. Quazon suddenly told him: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula ngayon. SP. 1991. 114733 January 2. NLRC AND HONORIO DAGUI G. the test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether the one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer except only as to the result of the work. four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. private respondent. private respondent Dagui received the shock of his life when Mrs. and PP. He was to perform carpentry.

“The work of the musical director and musicians is a functional and integral part of the enterprise performed at the same studio substantially under the direction and control of the company. vs. No.• Guild: o 95% of the musicians are members of the guild. and the best interests of ERs and EEs by the settlement of issues respecting terms and conditions of employment through the process of collective bargaining between ERs and representatives of their EEs. tells the music to be cut or tells additional music in this part or he eliminates the entire music he does not (want) or he may want more drums or more violin or piano. 2011 Reporter: Julius Eco FACTS • Jesus P. -testified in the lower court • The movie director “directly controls the activities of the musicians”. ISSUE Whether or not the musicians are employees of the film companies Law Applicable: RA 875. Inc.R. • RA 875 o designed to avert substantial obstruction to the free flow of commerce. are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved. o Premised upon these allegations. Industrial Peace Act RULING The order appealed from is affirmed. as the case may be”. The musicians are employees of the film companies. the Guild prayed that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for all musicians working in t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d c o m p a n i e s • SP and LVN: o denied having musicians as employees o musical numbers are furnished by independent contractors o petition for certification cannot be entertained when the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties is contested. ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY. IU is a result of: -refusal of employees to bargain collectively . o To promote sound stable industrial peace and the advancement of the general welfare.inability of workers to bargain successfully for improvement in their working conditions NLRC v.” • The right of control test o an ER-EE relationship exists where the person for whom the services. GISON G. Gison was engaged as part-time consultant on retainer basis by petitioner Atok Big Wedge Company. but also the manner and means to be used in reaching the end. INC. 169510 August 8. o SO results from strikes and other forms of industrial unrest. Respondent was likewise tasked to perform liaison work with several government agencies. . JESUS P. o no knowledge of the existence of any other legitimate Labor Organization representing musicians. “the movie director tells the musical director what to do. Hearst Publications • Purpose of the Act: o To eliminate the causes of IU by protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining..

the last one is the most important. Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB). • Respondent filed a petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA questioning the decision and resolution of the NLRC. but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 2005. non-payment of commission and award of moral and exemplary damages. unfair labor practice. respondent Wilmer D. CESAR C. • Sometime thereafter. FACTS On July 9. 2003. 169757. doing business under the name and style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX vs. GENOVIA G. or the so-called “control test. in his capacity as resident manager of petitioner. respondent filed a Complaint with the SSS against petitioner for the latter's refusal to cause his registration with the SSS. Labor Arbiter Rolando D. he requested that petitioner cause his registration with the Social Security System (SSS). since respondent was getting old. except when occasionally requested by the management to discuss matters needing his expertise as a consultant.R. Mario D. non-payment of 13th month pay. 2003 . • Respondent then appealed the decision to the NLRC. 2) the payment of wages. the NLRC. but it was denied in the Resolution dated September 30. The said arrangement continued for the next eleven years. vacation pay. and 4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. Genovia filed a complaint against petitioner Cesar Lirio and/or Celkor Ad Sonicmix Recording Studio for illegal dismissal. 2004. LIRIO.• Petitioner did not require respondent to report to its office on a regular basis. Second Division. respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal. • Hence. The so-called control test is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. the CA rendered the assailed Decision annulling and setting aside the decision of the NLRC. To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test. but petitioner did not accede to his request.“ Of these four. the petition. • On July 30. and sick leave pay with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). issued a Memorandum advising respondent that within 30 days from receipt thereof. ISSUE Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and respondent. to wit: 1) the selection and engagement of the employee. petitioner is terminating his retainer contract with the company since his services are no longer necessary. November 23. underpayment of wages. Gambito rendered a Decision ruling in favor of the petitioner. On February 4. . Under the control test. 2003. issued a Resolution affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter. • On May 31. • On September 26. On the same date. Cordillera Administrative Region. WILMER D. 2011 Reporter: Ryan Y. Cera. As it happened: • On February 21. 2004. He later reiterated his request but it was ignored by respondent considering that he was only a retainer/consultant. an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved. 3) the power of dismissal. 2002. No. Mantac Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals and its Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

2001. since they agreed to contribute money. respondent again reminded the petitioner for his compensation. in violation of his right to due process. 2005.R. Petitioner failed to comply with these legal requirements. are AFFIRMED. • Before the of September 2001. 2005.00 (monthly salary) and Php 100. On February 26. • The petitioner and the respondent verbally agreed to co-produce the album. except on the result thereof. the petition is DENIED. ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employer. as additional commission. 2002. Court of Appeals – Reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling with modifications.employee relationship? RULING: YES The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. the respondent reminded the petitioner about the compensation but the latter verbally assured him that he would be duly compensated. the burden is upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination was for lawful cause and validly made. (c) the power of dismissal. . and its Resolution dated September 21. the documentary evidence presented by the respondent (Payroll & Petty Cash Vouchers) showed that he was hired as an employee and was paid monthly wages of P7.000. Labor Arbiter Ruling – The employer-employee relationship exist and illegal dismissal. • He received Php 7.  Petitioner agreed to help and teach the respondent how to use the studio equipment. (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. • Respondent asserted that he was illegally dismissed without any valid grounds and no hearing was conducted before termination. petitioner had power to check on the progress and work of the respondent. the CA correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that respondent was illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. • Hence. dated August 4. whenever clients uses the studio.00 per hour.000. NLRC – Reversed and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. (b) the payment of wages. • He was approached about the project to produce an album and was asked to compose and arrange songs for Celine Mei Lirio and agreed that the respondent be compensated. 88899. • Petitioner asserted that his relationship with the respondent is one of an informal partnership under Article 1767 of the New Civil Code. composer. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was illegally dismissed? RULING: YES In termination cases. He was made to report to work from Monday to Friday (9am-6pm) and Saturdays (half day).Respondent’s Position Paper: • Respondent Genovia was hired as studio manager on August 15. SP No. there is no employer-employee relationship exist and the respondent was not illegally dismissed. 2002.  Petitioner wielded the power to dismiss when he verbally dismiss the respondent. technician or as an employee in any other capacity of Celkor. Hence. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Petitioner’s Position Paper: • In defense. On March 14. (b) the employee must be afforded due process. • Petitioner has no control over the time and manner by which the respondent composed or arranged the songs. property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. petitioner Lirio asserted that the respondent was not hired as a studio manager. WHEREFORE. the petitioner verbally terminated the respondent. in such case.  In this case. For an employee’s dismissal to be valid: (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause.

substantial evidence was sufficient as basis for judgment on existence of employer-employee relationship. ELISEO S.. SEVILLA and LINA O. • Finding that having been in the employ of private respondents continuously for more than a year. CANILAO.955. INC. 1988 Reporter: Stephanie Javellana FACTS  On October 19. • Public respondent resolved to remand case for further proceeding for failure of Labor Arbiter to support decision by evidence on record. service incentive leave and legal holiday and awarded unpaid commission amounting to P143. • Alleged that he was receiving salary of P1. identification card is mainly provided to identify holder thereof as bona fide employee of firm that issues it. THE COURT OF APPEALS. 4% goes to her and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service. • ID and cash vouchers covering petitioner’s salaries for months stated therein constitute substantial evidence adequate to support conclusion that petitioner was employee of private respondents. 1996 Reporter: Leonel Ocana FACTS • Petitioner instituted complaint against private respondents for illegal dismissal. petitioner is considered a regular employee. CATA GARMENTS CORPORATION and/or OTTO ONG and CATALINA CO. Agreement of the parties: When airline fare was brought in efforts of Lina Sevilla. TOURIST WORLD SERVICE. 1961. • Public respondent committed error and grave abuse of discretion to remand case for further proceedings to determine whether or not petitioner was private respondents’ employee as would only prolong final disposition of complaint. No. Tourist World Service was informed that Sevilla was connected with the rival company. 1960. EDDIE DOMASIG vs. No. unpaid commission and other monetary claims. and SEGUNDINA NOGUERA G. a contract of lease was entered between Mrs. Segundina Noguera and Tourist World Service. SEVILLA vs. the Tourist World Service considered closing down the company. • Whether or not substantial evidence is sufficient in establishing the existence of employer-employee relationship. • Private respondents denied that petitioner was a regular employee but a mere commission agent. Petitioner Lina Sevilla held herself solidarily liable for the said contract of lease. • Whether or not public respondent gravely abused discretion in vacating and setting aside decision of labor arbiter and remanding case to arbitration branch of origin for further proceedings. 118101 September 16. Inc. as represented by Mr. • Finding that in business establishment.500 per month plus commission prior to dismissal. G. DR. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION). CARLOS L. Thru the company’s .R. The premise leased was used as a branch office which was run and managed by petitioner Lina Sevilla. 13th month pay. Eliseo Canilao. • Labor Arbiter held that complainant was illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and backwages as well as underpayment of salary.R. ISSUES • Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed between private respondents and petitioner. RULING • Long established that in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. L-41182-3 April 16. • Contended to have been dismissed when private respondents learned that he was being pirated by rival corporation which offer he refused.  On or about November 24. and due to the losses.

board of directors. And the revocation complained entitles Sevilla to damages.  The Bacolod Branch is mainly a stockyard where scrap metal delivered by its suppliers are stockpiled. the office of manager and vice-president were abolished and the other authorized the corporate secretary to receive properties of Tourist World Service located in the said branch.  The trial court dismissed the case on the ground of lack of interest. She invoked the provisions on human relations of the Civil Code.  Sevilla refiled her case against the appellees. 155463 September 5. the competition and the demand for said metal. GREGORIO ROBERT SALILING. the respondent company (now the .  The trucks used in the delivery of scrap metal are owned and/or rented by the different suppliers with their own driver and truck boys employed. In addition to the test of control. and the supply is not steady as it depends upon the availability.  There are also other workers undertaking “pakiao” work in the unloading of scrap iron for stockpiling. Under the test of control. it does not make her an employee.00/ton for which each person can upload at least two (2) to three (3) tons per hour or can earn at least P240.00 to P360.  Gabino Canilao padlocked the premises to protect the interests of the Tourist World Service.  Lina Sevilla filed a complaint with a prayer of the issuance of mandatory preliminary injunction. these workers are paid at the rate of P15. The court pronounced that the relationship between the petitioner and TWS was a contract of agency. employment is determined by the right-of-control test and certain economic parameters. o Petitioner’s contention: She claimed that there was a joint business venture between her and TWS and the padlocking of the premises by TWS without her knowledge and consent entitles her claim for damages. ISSUE Whether there is an employee-employer relationship when the person who works for the company was not in the latter’s payroll.  The trial court found that it is TWS being the true lessee has the prerogative to terminate the lease and padlock the premise. Although she was not an employee. As pronounced by the court. o Respondent’s contention: The appellant was an employee and was designated as manager. and titles are weak indicators. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. No. (2) a Scaler and (3) a Yardman whose salaries are paid directly by its main office in Cebu. the court also do not agree that there was a joint business venture because Sevilla herself did not recognize the existence of such relationship as shown in her letter addressed to TWS. and was not subject to the control of the company thereby gives her the right to claim damage when the said property was padlocked without her knowledge and consent? RULING The court held that there was no employer-employee relationship.00 in eight (8) hours. She was not included in the company’s payrolls and she earned compensation thru the booking success she brought to the company. It has a branch in Bacolod with three (3) regular employees holding the positions of (1) Officer-in-Charge. Although she was titled as manager.R. Sometimes if these trucks do not have any truck boys. They were unemployed persons or “trisicad” drivers standing by in the vicinity and some of them are the herein complainants. it is apparent that Sevilla was not under the control of the company and she was pursuing the business relying on her own gifts and capabilities. bound herself in solidum in a contract of lease covering the office. They started working in the years 1995 and 1996. the price. 2006 Reporter: Rey Aspera Paja FACTS  Cebu Metal Corporation is a corporation engage in buying and selling of scrap iron. It likewise found that petitioner Sevilla to be a mere employee of the said TWS and she was bound by the acts of her employer. MANUEL ALQUIZA & BENJIE AMPARADO G. ELIAS BOLIDO.  As compensation for their services. and disconnected telephone connection. And such relationship cannot be revoked at will. CEBU METAL CORPORATION vs. the court also used certain economic parameters like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls.

2002.  Consequently. respondent complainants filed a complaint before the Regional Arbitration Branch VI. the corporation got irritated and instructed complainants to stop working and were precluded from entering the loading and unloading compound of the said corporation. rendered a decision ordering for the REINSTATEMENT of complainants to their former positions with backwages limited to one (1) year and payment of 13th month pay. they were employed by Cebu Metal Corporation in the years 1988. 1999. Jr. The Labor Arbiter found them to have been illegally dismissed explaining that under Art. Their services are needed only when scrap metals are delivered which occurs only once or twice a week or sometimes no delivery at all in a given week. In case reinstatement will not be available. 2000. Bacolod City against the Cebu Metal Corporation for underpayment of wages and non-payment of benefits. the CA annulled and set aside the assailed decision of the NLRC on the ground that the Commissioner committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing and setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter since the petitioner company did not make an issue out of the Labor Arbiter’s action in ruling on a cause of action. 1997. 1998. .009. aside from their salary.00 per metric ton. ERA & COLA totaling to P257.52.  Based on the facts of the case. they were regular employees since they are engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business and trade of their employer. petitioner) hires the services of people who are unloaders and basically “seasoned workers” only whenever there are trucks of suppliers who delivered scrap metals for the purpose of unloading. 1992 and 1994 and added that they never received any other benefits like 13th month pay. therefore. thus they could not have been illegally dismissed.00/metric ton as evidenced by the petty cash vouchers they signed. the NLRC arrived at a divergent conclusion that complainants are not paid on hourly or daily basis as they would like to believe but on “pakiao” or task basis at P15. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. they will not be considered as regular employees.  On January 10.  The respondent complainants challenge the ruling of the NLRC before the Court of Appeals (CA) and on February 18. The ruling of the SC was based on the following premises:  It was plain error for the CA to annul and set aside the decision of the NLRC on the lone reason that the latter dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the basis of an issue not raised by the Private Respondent in its appeal. 280 of the Labor Code.e. Accordingly. holiday pay. ISSUES  Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the NLRC had no authority to adjudicate on an issue not properly raised in petitioner company’s Memorandum of Appeal  Whether or not respondent complainants were regular employees of the petitioner company  Whether or not there was an illegal dismissal involved  Whether or not the judgment of the NLRC constitute grave abuse of discretion RULING  The Supreme Court (SC) GRANTED the petition of Cebu Metal Corporation and hereby reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution rendered by the Court of Appeals. incentive leave pay. Rodriguez. they will be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to 15 days to be given for every year of service.  On March 6. They were only paid on “pakiao” or task basis at P15. respondent complainants manifested that they were including in their complaint the claim for illegal dismissal due to the fact that they were only dismissed after the filing of their complaint. the Decision of the NLRC was reinstated.  On May 27.  No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the NLRC because its decision simply expressed an observation and it was not performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.  The Commission also declared that the respondent complainants invalidly raised the issue of illegal dismissal in the position paper they filed. Labor Arbiter Jesus N. bonuses and other labor benefits. the NLRC reversed and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that respondent complainants were not regular employees. not specifically stated in the complaint. i.  According to the complainants.  When the complainants demanded for salary increase.  There can be no illegal dismissal to speak of because complainants cannot claim regularity in the hiring every time a truck comes loaded and not every truck delivery requires their services. the aggrieved petitioner company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and on October 9.

DELFIN LIZA. the petition.. Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed. IRENE BALLESTEROS. Padilla FACTS Petitioner alleged that:  In 1995. Kasei Corporation hired her as Accountant. and if in the affirmative 2.  Her monthly salary was P27.500 a month. Hence. as well as a list of payees subject to expanded withholding tax on professionals. Kasei officials told her she was no longer connected with the company. 2000. bonuses and allowances. employed him as comptroller from Sept. TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA GR No. RULING 1.  SSS records were also submitted showing that petitioner’s latest employer was Seiji Corporation Decision of lower courts:  Labor Arbiter: Francisco was illegally dismissed. KASEI CORPORATION. . Under the broader economic reality test.ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs.  In 1996.  But in January 2001. YES. 13th month pay. with housing allowance and 10% profit share.  NLRC: affirmed LA. benefits.  CA (motion for reconsideration): DENIED.  On Oct. TIMOTEO ACEDO.employee relationship between petitioner and private respondent Kasei Corporation.  In October 2001. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Respondents countered that:  Petitioner had no daily time record and she came to the office any time she wanted. SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI. 2012 Reporter: Roland Pama FACTS Petitioner Charlie Jao alleged:  That respondents BCC and its President.  CA: reversed NLRC. receiving check vouchers indicating her salaries/wages. PETITION IS GRANTED. she was replaced as a manager. the security guards of BCC barred him from the premises of BCC where he then worked. the petitioner can likewise be said to be an employee of respondent corporation because she had served the company for six years before her dismissal. 2. 2006 Reporter: Victoria P. CHARLIE JAO vs. ISSUES 1.000php to handle the financial aspect of BCC’s business. AND TERRANCE TY GR No. 1995 with a monthly salary of 20. Terrance Ty. Whether or not there was an employer.500. A diminution of pay is prejudicial to the employee and amounts to constructive dismissal. was instead designated as Technical Consultant. she was illegally dismissed. 170087 August 31. YES. and Liason Officer. the corporation’s Technical Consultant. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC. as well as deductions and Social Security contributions from August 1. the petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura. 1999 to December 18. Corporate Secretary. she was replaced as Accountant and designated instead as Acting Manager. 163700 April 18. 1995. and her pay was reduced by P2. By applying the control test.  Petitioner was not among the employees reported to the BIR. 19.

 On June 24.  Petitioner’s name did not appear in the payroll of BCC despite him having approved such payroll as comptroller. the petition. ISSUE Whether or not an employer. HONORATO JUDICO G.00. 1995. 1989 Reporter: Norvie Aine Pasia FACTS  On June 9. and Dec.employee relationship: a) Selection and engagement of the employee – employer-employee relationship created by the act of hiring.  The respondents assailed the NLRC decision with a petition for certiorari in the CA. CA ruled in favor of respondents. 2002. 1996. Respondents countered:  That petitioner was not their employee but the employee of SFC. the NLRC rendered a decision declaring the petition has been illegally dismissed.  On July 31.  During the third week of November 1981.00. 1976. 20.  Petitioner presented no document setting forth the terms of his employment by BCC. 00 as allowance for thirteen (13) weeks regardless of production and later a certain percentage denominated as sales reserve of his total collections but not lesser than P 200. b) Payment of wages – if the person hired is compensated in terms of “wages.  It can be deduced from the March 1996 affidavit of petitioner that the respondents challenged his authority to deliver some checks to SFC while petitioner contested the challenge by pointing out the arrangements between BCC and SFC. This shows that respondents did not exercise power of control over for petitioner as he acted for the interests of SFC. 12. On September 1981. . a major creditor and supplier of respondent BCC.  Hence. 1982. That SFC had posted the petitioner as its Comptroller in BCC to oversee SFC’s interests or investment in BCC.  On Sept. 73887 December 21.  Petitioner’s affidavit proves that he only worked in BCC as SFC’s representative. not paid so-called weekly sales reserve of at least P 200.  Finally on June 28. the Labor Arbiter Pati ruled in favor of petitioner but the NLRC vacated the ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. No. he was reverted to his former position as debit agent but. Judico was dismissed by way of termination of his agency contract. Judico was promoted to the position of Zone Supervisor and was given additional (supervisor's) allowance fixed at P110. As it happened:  On Dec. 2001. RULING  Petition lacks merit. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. 28. for unknown reasons. That in Nov.” c) Power of dismissal – if person hired is subject to the rules of discipline of the employer. Grepalife admits that Judico entered into an agreement of agency with them to become a debit agent attached in Cebu City. GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (GREPALIFE) vs. Labor Arbiter Mayor dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for want of employer-employee relationship between the parties.  The “control test” is the most determinative. d) Power to control employee’s conduct – authority on both the means and result of work.employee relationship existed between petitioner Charlie and BCC Standards in determining the existence of employer. he was continuously barred from entering the premises on his attempts to go to work. Judico had definite work assignments including but not limited to collection of premiums from policy holders and selling insurance to prospective clients. 1995. Such admission is in line with the findings of the public respondent NLRC that as a debit agent.00 per week. No employer-employee relationship.  Public respondent NLRC also found out that Judico was initially paid P 200.R.  Petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that an employer-employee relationship existed between him and BCC.

Compensation in the form of commissions 3.Refund of cash bond. Judico then.00 to complainant moot and academic. . decision was reversed by the NLRC ruling that: o Complainant is a regular employee as defined under Art. private respondent. the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Petitioner company moved to reconsider.000. Premises considered. Authority to solicit insurance policies in accordance with the RR of Company 2. Termination (Company may terminate at will) 7.  Petitioner assails and argues that the respondent is not an employee and that his compensation was not based on any fixed number of hours he was required to devote to the service of company but rather it was the production or result of his efforts or his work that was being compensated. • May 1979 – Company terminated the Agency’s Manager Contract. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MELECIO BASIAO G. 1989 FACTS  July 2. . Assignment  April 1972 – Agency’s Manager Contract * Basiao organized an agency or office and concurrently fulfilling his commitment in the first contract. Undoubtedly. No.00  On appeal. the kind of performance but also the power of dismissal. o But ordered Grepalife to pay complainant the sum of Pl.  Said contentions of petitioner were strongly rejected by respondent he maintains that he received a definite amount as his wage. hence this petition. Illegal and Unethical Practices 6. had been a regular employee of petitioner and is therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and justifiable cause.000. .Unpaid salary and 13th month pay. ISSUE Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner (GrePaLife) and the private respondent (Honorato Judico). INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.  Both parties appealed to the NLRC and decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint on the ground that: o The employer-employee relations did not exist between the parties. a duly organized insurance firm.Moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. o Said complaint prayed for award of money claims consisting of: .. He was dismissed primarily because of anemic performance and not because of the termination of the contract of agency substantiate the fact that he was indeed an employee of the petitioner and not an insurance agent in the ordinary meaning of the term. in private respondent's case. 84484 November 15. by nature of his position and work.Separation pay. SO ORDERED. which was denied. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Grepalife. o Declaring the appeal of Grepalife questioning the legality of the payment of Pl. 281 of the Labor Code. the amount of results. . Relation with Company (No employee – employer relationship) 5. Company’s Rate Book and Agent’s Manual 4. 1968 – Company and Basiao entered into contract. LTD. RULING Whereas.R. vs. the undisputed facts show that he was controlled by petitioner insurance company not only as to the kind of work. 1.

Ministry of Labor has jurisdiction. and 4) the power to control the employees' conduct — although the latter is the most important element (Viana v. “Control test” In determining the existence of employer. The critical feature that distinguishes the status of an employee from that of an independent contractor is control. Under the said contract. o Basiao sued the Company in a civil action o He alleged that this prompted Company to terminate his first contract • Basiao filed with Ministry of Labor a complaint against Company – to recover unpaid commissions plus attorney’s fees. It stated that Basiao is the master of his own time and selling methods. create no employer. 2) the payment of wages. 1. MOLE has jurisdiction) Supreme Court (certiorari and prohibition) ISSUE Whether or not MOLE has jurisdiction over Basiao’s complaint. Aim only to promote the result. . Company is directed to pay the unpaid commissions plus attorney’s fees. 217 of the Labor Code.employee relationship.” Distinction Rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. 2. 3) the power of dismissal. RULING Appealed Resolution of the NLRC is set aside and the complaint of Basiao is DISMISSED. The contract agreement established employer-employee relationship. NLRC — AFFIRMED LABOR ARBITER (In favor of Basiao. Labor Arbiter —In FAVOR of Basiao. Rules that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. Basiao became the Company’s employee by virtue of the contract placing his claim for unpaid commissions within LA’s jurisdiction under Art. No E-E existed under the contract. Basiao’s status was that of an independent contractor and his complaint is only cognizable under regular courts in an ordinary civil action.employee relationship. the following elements are generally considered. if the recognized distinction between an employee and an individual contractor is not to vanish altogether. namely: 1) the selection and engagement of the employee. A line must be drawn somewhere. • Company disputed MOLE’s jurisdiction over the complaint because Basiao is not an employee but an independent contractor. Alejo Al-Lagadan) “Not every form of control that the hiring party reserves to himself over the conduct of the party hired in relation to the services rendered may be accorded the effect of establishing an employer-employee relationship between them in the legal or technical sense of the term. • Company had no obligation to him for unpaid commissions under the contract. The terms in the contract do not constitute the decisive determinant of the nature of his engagement.

• The Court. any balance of commissions earned being payable to their legal representatives in the event of death or registration. (e) Engaging in tomb making and inclusion of the price of the tomb in the package price without prior knowledge of the customer and the company. 1990 Reporter: Crystal Pido FACTS • Sometime in 1962. INC. but a commission agent. • The rules which prescribe the qualifications of persons who may be insured. Inc. place and means of soliciting insurance. • In 1987. (c) subject to a set of rules and regulations governing the performance of their duties under the agreement with the company and termination of their services for certain causes. and who.remittance of collections and non-issuance of Official Receipt. Whatever this is meant to imply. (d) Non. In Investment Planning Corporation of the Philippines vs. Basiao was not an employee of the petitioner. shouldered their own selling and transportation expenses. He was paid on a commission basis of 3.. No. Respondent was dismissed by the petitioner for commission of the following violations despite previous warnings: (a) Understatement of the reported contract price against the actual contract price charged to and paid by the customers. Social Security System. linen. “. Labor Arbiter Ruling: . and also reserve to the Company the determination of the premiums to be paid and the schedules of payment. • The respondents limit themselves to pointing out that Basiao's contract with the Company bound him to observe and conform to such rules and regulations as the latter might from time to time prescribe. Appealed Resolution of the NLRC is set aside and the complaint of Basiao is DISMISSED. rules that under the contract invoked by him. free to exercise his own judgment as to the time. • Maalat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of commisions. (b) required to put up performance bonds.. subject insurance applications to processing and approval by the Company. much less that any rules existed or were issued which effectively controlled or restricted his choice of methods — or the methods themselves — of selling insurance. finally. None of these invades the agent's contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at his own time and convenience. an independent contractor whose claim for unpaid commissions should have been litigated in an ordinary civil action. hence cannot justifiably be said to establish an employer- employee relationship. NOLI MAALAT G. There is employer-employee relationship. nor to devote their time exclusively to working for the company nor to submit a record of their activities. and security services without issuing of Official Receipt.R. sales and collections. No showing has been made that any such rules or regulations were in fact promulgated. vs. • It is usual and expected for an insurance company to promulgate set of rules to guide its agents in selling its policies that they may not run afoul with what the law prescribes or prohibit. (b) Misappropriation of funds or collections by non.5% of the amounts actually collected and remitted.reporting of some embalming and re-embalming charges and pocketing the same and non-issuance of Official Receipt. 86693 187 SCRA 108 July 2. COSMOPOLITAN FUNERAL HOMES. (d) not required to report for work at any time.” • The Labor Arbiter's decision makes reference to Basiao's claim of having been connected with the Company for twenty-five years. engaged the services of private respondent Noli Maalat as a supervisor to handle the solicitation of mortuary arrangements.Addresses both the result and the means used to achieve it. (c) Charging customers additional amount and pocketing the same for the cost of medicines. petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes. therefore. the SC held that an independent contractor and others similarly placed were: (a) paid compensation in the form of commissions based on percentages of their sales. the obvious reply would be that what is germane here is Basiao's status under the contract and not the length of his relationship with the Company.

commission. 1961  Matter was elevated to the SC for review ISSUE • Whether petitioner’s registered representatives are “employees” within the meaning of the Social Security Act (R. They are paid their commission based on a certain percentage of their sales. *denied on January 16. an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved.A. *denied on September 8.  who receives compensation for such services **Employee ─ is paid for the labor he performs **Independent contractor ─ is paid for the result thereof Χ They receive compensation but not necessarily for those efforts but for the results thereof. and (2) registered representatives who work on commission basis. NLRC Ruling: The decision of the Arbiter is reversed and a new decision is rendered. RULING • The decision of NLRC is affirmed. • August 27. but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. 1967 Reporter: Cristine Joy T. The dismissal of Noli Maalat by respondent- appellant as justified and with lawful cause. • Section 8(d) of the Social Security Act defines “employee” as:  Any person who performs services for an “employer” in which either or both mental and physical efforts are used  The registered representatives exert both mental and physical efforts in the performance of their services. • In determining whether a person who performs work for another is the latter’s employee or an independent contractor. Χ The compensation an agent receives is not paid by petitioner but by the investor because the commission earned by him on the sale is directly deducted by himself from the amount he receives . RULING • No.571. Pimentel FACTS • Petitioner is engaged in business management and the sale of securities. 1961 • Motion to reconsider was filed. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM 21 SCRA 924 November 18. • Under this test.52. No. interests and attorney’s fee in the total amount of P205. • The NLRC stated that there exists an employment relationship between the parties. INVESTMENT PLANNING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ISSUE Whether or not the NLRC erred in ruling that an employment relationship existed between the parties. 1960 ─ petitioner applied to Social Security Commission for exemption of its so-called registered representatives from the compulsory coverage of the Social Security Act. the prevailing test is the “right of control” test. 1161 as amended).Maalat dismissal is illegal and ordering the petitioner to pay separation pay. It has two classes of agents who sell its investment plans: (1) salaried employees who keep definite hours and work under the control and supervision of the company.

they shoulder their own selling expenses as well as transportation … . 1-86. from the investor and he turns over to the company the amount invested after such deduction is made. • The employer-employee relationship does not exist between petitioner and its registered representatives. • The motion to quash was denied. • The complaint alleges the illegality of the Contract of Agency.C. They are independent contractors not under the mandatory coverage of the Social Security Act. Ortega filed a motion to quash the subpoena. PHIL. dated April 17. prays for the nullification of the provisions on charges and fees stated in the contract and requests for the reimbursement of the deducted charges and fees. to comment on respondent Paterno's letter. 1994 Reporter: Niezel Anen T. in his capacity as Philamlife's president. asked that respondent Commission first rule on the questions of the jurisdiction of the Insurance Commissioner over the subject matter. FACTS • The case arose from the letter-complaint of Ramon Paterno. • Nothing in the contract between petitioner and its registered representatives indicate that the latter are under the control of the former in respect of the means and methods they employ in the performance of their work. Philamlife’̂ s Senior Assistant Vice.R. ISSUE Whether or not the resolution of the legality of the Contract of Agency falls within the jurisdiction of the Insurance Commissioner.  where there is employer-employee relationship **Control Test ─ whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished Χ The agents are not required to report (for work) at any time. AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. No. 76452 July 26. they are not required to account for their time nor submit a record of their activities. RULING • The contract of agency entered into between Philamlife and its agents is not included within the meaning of an insurance business. ANSALDO G. they do not have to devote their time exclusively to or work solely for petitioner. assume jurisdiction over controversies between the insurance companies and their agents. 1986 alleging certain problems encountered by employees and consumers of the Philamlife as a result of certain practices of the company. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. 1986 of the Insurance Commissioner and the entire proceedings taken in I. • Commissioner requested petitioner Rodrigo de los Reyes. • Resolution of respondent Social Security Commission is reversed and set aside. • Insurance Commissioner cannot. in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers.President and Executive Assistant to the President. Special Case No. without pronouncement as to costs. . Sabrido OVERVIEW This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to annul and set aside the Order dated November 6. • Manuel Ortega. Jr. • Insurance Commissioner set the case for hearing and sent subpoena to the officers of Philamlife. the time and the effort they spend in their work depend entirely upon their own will and initiative. Section 2 of the Insurance Code cannot be invoked to give jurisdiction over the same to the Insurance Commissioner.

TONGKO vs.Manulife instituted manpower development programs in the regional sales management level. handling of money. Gregorio V. persistency income.employee relationship. 2008 (570 SCRA 503) January 25. As the CA found.  December 18. Tongko’s gross earnings from his work at Manulife. Tongko failed to align his directions with the Management’s avowed agency growth policy.). consisting of commissions. legal and regulatory requirements and ground for termination of employment. De Dios expressed his dissatisfaction of Tongko’s performance in their agent recruiting business which resulter in some changes on how Tongko would conduct his duties. 2011 (640 SCRA 395) Reporter: Lech Benigno D. policy holder service. 2004 . (MANULIFE) G. In the letter. the Management exercised its prerogative to terminate the Agency Agreement of Tongko as stipulated in his Agents Contract. The company President and CEO Mr. •Manulife prescribed a rule of conduct which would govern in minute detail all aspects of the work to be undertaken by employees including the sales process. In the agreement.Tongko filed a Complaint with the NLRC against Manulife for illegal dismissal. The CEO contends that despite their company meetings. Catacutan FACTS  July 1. ISSUE Is there an employee-employer relationship between Gregorio Tongko and Manulife? RULING  1st Decision dated April 15. confidentiality. Tongko worked for Manulife by virtue of a Career Agent’s Agreement. In the complaint. 2002. (PHILS. signatures. 2001 — De Dios wrote Tongko another letter which served as notice of termination of his Agency Agreement with the company effective fifteen days from the date of the letter. 167622 November 7. 1977 — Gregorio V. Among his contentions are: •He was hired by Manulife and was promoted and was given various assignments •It was the company that set objectives as regards to productions. No. On account thereof. Tongko expressing his vision for the company’s future. Renato Vergel De Dios addressed a letter to Mr. recruitments. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CORP.  November 25. Padolina . It includes that Tongko hire at his expense a competent assistant to unload him of routine tasks which had been complaining to be taxing for him.R. In 1990.By Labor Arbiter Marita V. INC.• The relationship between the insurance company and its agents is governed either by the Labor Code or the Civil Code. 2001. it is provided that: “It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted as creating an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Agent”  In 1983 — Tongko was named as a Unit Manager in Manulife’s Sales Agency Organization. he became a Branch Manager. training programs and all activities pertaining to business. Tongko in a bid to establish an employer. may be summarized as follows:  November 6. the underwriting process. alleged that De Dios gave him specific directives on how to manage his area of responsibility. and management overrides.

NLRC held that substantial evidence was sufficient basis for judgment on the existence of the employer-employee relationship. held Manulife liable for illegal dismissal. It was of the view that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not preclude the existence of employer. Javier presented an affidavit of one Bengie Valenzuela who alleged that Javier was a stevedore or pahinante of Fly Ace from September 2007 to January 2008. 3008.000 (4) Attorney’s fees” BITOY JAVIER (DANILO P. He alleged that he was an employee of Fly Ace performing various tasks necessary and desirable for the company. ● On May 6. based on the alleged basis that his daughter refused the affection of Mr. Ong. 109975. 2004 of the NLRC is REINSTATED with the following modifications: Manulife shall pay Tongko the following: (1) Full backwages (2) Separation pay (3) Nominal damages of PhP 30. JAVIER) vs. ● Fly Ace argues that Bitoy is merely hired on a pakyaw basis at an agreed rate of P300. he was not allowed to enter the company premises by Mr.  3rd Decision dated November 7. Denying that he was their employee. ● Javier was a regular employee of Fly Ace because there was reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee (as a pahinante) in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer (importation. Finding Javier to be a regular employee. which reversed the May 28.00 in January 2008. . Ruben Ong and was thereafter dismissed from service without notice.”  2nd Decision dated Sept 27. 2009 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in the case entitled Bitoy Javier v. ● On March 18. Javier filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor standard benefits. 2010.00 per trip. ● On appeal with the NLRC. the NLRC ruled that he was entitled to a security of tenure. ● On November 28.employee relationship.By the Supreme Court “The Decision dated September 27. 2. ISSUE 1. 2008. which was later increased to P325. 2004 – By NLRC’s First Division “While finding an employer-employee relationship between Manulife and Tongko applying the four-fold test. Fly Ace insisted that there was no illegal dismissal. Javier was favored. ● To support his allegations.” The Division further stated that Manulife exercised control over Tongko for they controlled complainant’s manner and means of doing his work and achieving the goals set by respondents. the LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on the ground that Javier failed to present proof that he was a regular employee of Fly Ace. 2008. there being no employee-employer relationship between the parties. FLY ACE CORPORATION/FLORDELYN CASTILLO Reporter: Dianne Maurice Gomez No. Whether or not Bitoy was illegally dismissed by Fly Ace Corporation. sales and delivery of groceries). holding that petitioner Bitoy Javier (Javier) was illegally dismissed from employment and ordering Fly Ace Corporation (Fly Ace) to pay backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. “The instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. FACTS ● On May 23. Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. Fly Ace/Flordelyn Castillo. 2008. the CA annulled the NLRC findings that Javier was indeed a former employee of Fly Ace and reinstated the dismissal of Javier’s complaint as ordered by the LA.

It must be noted that the issue of Javier’s alleged illegal dismissal is anchored on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between him and Fly Ace. Javier failed to adduce substantial evidence as basis for the grant of relief. ● Considering the above findings. . The Court is constrained to agree. Sadly. ● In sum. the rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on petitioner to establish or substantiate such claim by the requisite quantum of evidence. In dealing with factual issues in labor cases. is sufficient. This is essentially a question of fact. ● As the records bear out.RULING ● The Court affirms the assailed CA decision. the Court does not see the necessity to resolve the second issue presented. the LA and the CA found JavierÊs claim of employment with Fly Ace as wanting and deficient. substantial evidence: that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.